FP: Breaking Up Windows..

I always thought it was a bad idea to slap this anti-trust suite at M$.

Can you imagine it, XP without IE or mediaplayer?. thats like having a porsche without an engine!

OK so Microsoft dominate everything, and perfer you to buy there products.. well looking at the competition.. its no wonder! in the end its us consumers that are gonna have to fork out more money, when we shouldnt have to, just because companies like Real worry they cannot compete. Well Real, on previous evidence of your player and its spy software issues.. IS THERE ANY WONDER!

I agree competition is good and needed, but not at extra cost to US! the consumer. Give M$ a freekin break!

indeed the idea of having to purchase componants separately is a bit of a shit, but i actually am interested by the idea. now, all i have to do with the new operating systems, is download (hopefully) a smaller base file for my windows operating system (find a cracked serial), and instead of having all this extra crap on my computer that i don't need, i can simply download the major components that i want.

extra cost for separate components doesnt bother me since i would baulk at having to purchase anything in the first place (if u get my meaning).

Does anyone agree with these ideas?:

1. That as a result of having to buy components separately, microsoft will inevitably have to make the additional components more attractive to the end user so that they purchase them! So ultimately the consumer will be getting the benefits of better software through competition.

2. Who thinks that microsoft will simply allow people to download the additional software for free? explorer as a free download, media player as a free download...etc.??

thats my two cents for now, i look forward to arguing with people over it!
hehe.

If MS does have to make a scaled down version of their Windows, Does this mean that they will not have two versions of there operating system. 1 for those who want the scaled down and 1 for the packaged version?

Another thing to think about is if they do remove the extras out of windows, how would this effect the computing world. when you have people who has never touched a computer before and they now have a scaled down windows these forums are going to hit the roof with "How To" questions on simple things as instalations. I feel the packaged windows has help many newbes to get started.

I like the basic M$ windows system of being able to run just about everything straight out of the box. The things like REAL Player are shockingly expensive sometimes, and for my money the XP shipped software is often better than these additional "modules" like REAL. Is this the way of the future, CEOs want to be as rich as possible, at the expense of the very people they depend on to get rich. I have since removed REAL Player as it is really crap, I hate the interface and the general system of it. QuickTime is great, as is DivX, in both of these you get better quality than with REAL.
DivX can also (I believe) do streaming video as well. the Main thing is that it is free, and if you prefer the M$ Media Player interface you can still run DivX on that or on the DivX playa.

What I want to know is would M$ still develop and distribute IE, as it is much better than NetScape, Opera and others. The main reason that NetScape NaviCrapper lost so many customers was that they found IE to be BETTER than netscape. Not just because it was included with the OS.

Really the US DoJ needs to listen to the general consenus of the people that will be using these after and split up is performed.

I also dont see why the US DoJ, gets to F**k up the lives of everybody around the world. As an M$ split will affect everyone who uses Windows, this problem should be put before a board of users, experienced and not, large software users and not.

Also the wealth of preinstalled software with Windows allows access and use of a PC to anybody, my aunt is not the most confident of computer users, I have to install most of the stuff she uses, the bundled Windows software allows her to use the computer and bundled features without needing to install all sorts of software before she can do so.

Windows works straight out of the box, like Linux (sometimes) it has its own bundled browser and I wasnt confident to change it when I got it to work. I quite appreciated that a browser and media player software was already installed.

If you prefer to use alternative Windows software Microsoft doesnt stop you.

M$ for some reason can't build a windows that is more stable and as fast as windows XP due to the removal of all the add ins, (that are not really just ADD INS, but part of the OS in most cases).

But lets say they just can't do it... and the next windows version to come out is called " Windows BASIC". Unfortunatly it crashes and locks up, and just plain sucks when it comes to running everything...

Would you buy it? Can you say WINDOWS ME??

OK that said... M$ don't decide to continue the Windows line at all, because it just won't work and it would take too much money and time to make it work...Where do we go next???

1) stick with windows XP FOREVER!
2) Hope that O/S 2 WARP gets RE-Invented
3) Buy a Mac?
4) Linux anyone?
or my favorite...
5) Joe Blow writes a new OS called DOORS!!! Put out by none other than a company called Bigsoft. hmmmmmm

I was just wondering is there any way to let those aging, computer challenged idiots in the US DoJ, to read the comments that REAL USERS are saying about the idea of a split, in that article they said that the handheld XP has modular.

Any Guesses why?

1. Every handheld is effectively the same (this due to people not really being able to build their own) people will buy a handheld to perform certain functions.

2. You dont need things like streaming Video on a handheld.

Reasons it shouldnt be done on Normal PCs

1. Reduces usability for new users
2. Almost every System and its needs as different

Generally if people dont like M$ software then they will get other pieces of software. M$ is not stopping other software from being used, ie MovieMaker is for dabblers, not for full blown video edittors, they will get more specific and powerful software.

If people want to watch crappy quality video which stops every 3 seconds they will user REAL Player.

bheagle, I would go with XP forever, maybe dual boot with Linux

But if Joe Blow writes Doors then there will be a anti-trust suit at them from rival makers of ShutterBlinds, or Portholes or Rooves

Some points covered here, which really makes you wonder what the REAL reason for the lawsuits, to me all I can see is the little dog biting at the big dogs feet!

M$ wont lose out by having a cut down Windows, all I'm worried about is TRUE compatability, and COST.

Having to seperatley add IE & mediaplayer seems daft to me, & I very much doubt it will be free, because the windows bedding will be cheaper so M$ will want to get back the lost money, hence IE & Mplayer will probably get a charge.

Just leave XP alone ffs!!! its a great OS, better than previous encarnations.

Microsoft builds it's OS exactly the way it always has but with one minor difference.... for each component you want, you have to pay a fee of $1 to activate it..

You buy windows and install it... once install starts a screen comes up asking wich parts you wanna activate.. you put checkmarks in IE,Media Player etc... it asks for a credit card number or phone varification code or something, and charges you $1 per unit... wich in turn REMOVES the LOCK from those components during install...

I own a bussiness. I know what it feels like to have the big guy make all the money because he has monopolized on that market. and because they make the big bucks they pay everyone off to keep it that way. How would you like to only be able to buy intel cpu at double the price? Thats what happens when you knock out the competition. When you the only one selling it than you can charge whatever. Supply and demand! Why do you think windows xp upgrade is cheaper than win. 98 was when it first came out? Microsoft is trying to put Linux out of bussiness. And you would not be getting it that cheap if it was not for Linux being out there. Being in bussiness, and knowing how pricing works, I figure we would be paying 50 to 100 dollars more for each xp version if there was no competition. Because they have it,
you need it, and their the only ones you can get it from. You watch, the price will drop to compete with Real, Netscape, Linux. and anyone else that decides to hit the market, because this opens doors.

An operating system should be just that. An Operating System. Two of the biggest problems with Windows, especially since Win95, has been vulnerability and stability. Both of these problems will ultimatly only be solved when Microsoft stops trying to be the "be all end all" of software.

An OS shouldn't have to do anything else than be a vehicle to enable applications to make use of a computers hardware. But when you start tying all sorts of middleware into the OS you get a raft of security and stability issues. Besides, we all know the only reason that IE and WMplayer are free is because Bill hasn't killed off the competition yet. As soon as there is no competition in these areas, that free ride will be over.

nevadamoonlight: i totaly agree! a base windows operating system is just what MS should have. I can liken it a bit to instant package noodles. just add water and stir, the only difference is the flavouring you use!

i want a noodle operating system! and for my flavouring, i will add winamp, internet explorer, icq, photoshop, MS office a few other nice spices, and stir for one and a half minutes.

Ofcourse it'll work. Linux distros do it all the time. Anyone who has ever installed Linux has seen this in action.
And it's not that I don't like Windows, I do, or I wouldn't be using it. I just don't like Big Brother Bill telling me how to do everything and what to do it with.

Everyone looks at this large corporation as if it were some kind of demon.
Noone thinks about how M$ has changed our lives. If not just by software alone, they are large supporters of alot of charities. They are large contributors in campaigns. 90% of us use windows. We dont have to, but we choose to. But as we all know, you can win the popular vote and still lose an election.
If I were Bill Gates and I was forced to break my company up, I would walk away. I'd close shop. Retire my company. I would give out the source code. And give a large middle finger salute. There would be no more charities, campaigns, no more tech support, or security updates.
How many lives do you think would be affected?

Personally, I don't care one way or the other. A core Windows might be ideal, but it likely wouldn't solve any problems, either with OS integrity or the monopoly issue.

The DoJ's primary argument is Microsoft's browser monopoly. Fine, let's look at that. IE, in one incarnation or another, has always been packaged with MS's 32-bit operating systems (don't quite recall about early NT, but NT wasn't much worth using 'til NT3 anyway, so bear with me). Yet for much of Windows 95's life, it was generally accepted that the most popular browser for Windows users was, indeed, Netscape Navigator. Monopoly, indeed.

It wasn't until Navigator began to get bloated, buggy, and impractical that the tides started to turn. IE threatened to take this route, as well (along with most MS software at the time), until IE5 final was released. It was lean, mean, fast, and stable (as much as it could be on Win9x, at least) and proceeded to completely blow Navigator out of the water, not looking back since.

Opera's a good alternative for some, but it's shareware, isn't very plugin-friendly, and the last time I looked at it was already getting a bit too thick around the edges, belying its streamlined history. Mozilla was pretty much destined to be DOA. Navigator doesn't even have the Linux following it once did, its last hope in gaining market share on any OS.

Windows Media Player is another matter -- there are heaps of great media players around. Personally, WMP suits my uses just fine most of the time, and I use it for just about all audio and video playing (although I do prefer a dedicated DVD video application), but if I, say, played MP3s more often than I do, I'd want to look somewhere else to more suitably fill that need. We have choices here.

We don't have viable choices when it comes to browsers, and that's no fault of Microsoft's.

I agree with you on the browser issue Gnu, the media front is also a very good, point though I tend not to use WMP for anything other than video files, I use WinDVD for DVD and Creative PlayCenter 3 for sound though it does video as well, it takes ages to load. It is a bit bloated, but through the Audigy card, it is the only piece of software that doesnt crackle while playing like winamp.

Well, i agree with Gnu on the browser issue, because i remember when most people used Netscape (I did in the early days). But even though most people are now using IE, i don't see any basis for a lawsuit. The general opinion that i have recieved from talking to people on the net and off, is that IE is being used because it is considered a superior product, not just because it comes with the OS. Besideds the fact that the nation's number 1 ISP, AOL, has you use their browser by default (unfortunately, since their browser SUCKS), so most people who have IE and AOL probably don't even use IE. Now, I am definately not a big fan of MS, but i use IE because it's simple to use, and fast.

If I do not like software that comes with Windows, i uninstall it and either purchase different software, or find some freeware on the net, and find something that i like......for example, i only use WMP for video, i bought Musicmatch Jukebox for MP3s (there's also a free version), and i use Cyberlink Power DVD for my DVD's. I have various other programs for different uses. I uninstalled most of the MS software that came with XP, because i think there are better programs out there, but i also feel that for someone who is not familiar with computers, Windows can be of GREAT assistance.

The "pre-packaged" Windows can be a big help to someone who has little or no experience with computer. The MS software is very easy to use and learn. I myself used mostly MS software when i was "green". Once I became proficient with the use of Windows, however, i discovered that there were programs more suited to my needs, and i began using those. I believe that there are programs out there for everyone, and there would be no question of a monopoly by MS if their competitors would take the money that they spend on lawers and lawsuits in an effort to disband Microsoft, and spend it on advertising and product development so that Microsoft can be defeated by hard work and inginuity (which would better the market as a whole anyways) instead of jealousy and bitterness.